Re: HadCRUT and other datasets

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:12:31 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:44:34 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
<jkirwan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Note: Sorry for the delayed reply. I've had a bit of excessive
entertainment. I passed one kidney stone, fired one customer, and now
there's a rather large brush fire in the area.

I am sincerely sorry to hear all this.

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:54:39 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
You mean there's a published paper on global warming that does NOT
mention CO2?

Yes, there are. Would you like a cite or two? Or will you just take
my word on it?

I don't take anyone's word for anything. I like measurements,
calculations, and numbers, not authoritative bluster.

I like theory. Without theory, measurements are just noise without
meaning.

The problem is
that Google Scholar search does not do a very effective job of
searching for terms with a subscript. The best I can do is "CO2" and
"CO 2" which result in a total of 5,490 hits out of a total of 10,500
hits for 2008. Therefore, I stand corrected. Only about half the
articles in 2008 mention CO2.

Plenty of peer-reviewed climate science papers _do_ mention CO2 in a
kind of ancillary way -- that doesn't in any way mean that the
articles are going to help you understand why it's important (or not
-- as you are certainly permitted to come to your own informed
conclusions.)

I actually read papers on the subject -- if you count only those I've
read thoroughly and tried hard to understand well, it is probably
under a hundred. If you count those I've skimmed over looking for
specific details, it's hundreds. I have here a pair of directories I
keep: one that keeps peer-reviewed papers on climate science and one
that keeps the peer-reviewed papers on climate science that were
specifically used in arriving at AR4 in 2007, but were at the time
unpublished (awaiting publication, but had been reviewed.) Something
like 800 papers in both directories, now. I've at least skimmed half
of them.

None of this makes me an expert on any of it -- I do NOT have the kind
of comprehensive understanding on any facet of climate science that
even the more lackluster climate scientist may have in their area.
It's not my field and I only read it because I'm an interested
hobbyist. But I can certainly say that one cannot avoid reading a
fair number of key papers just to get an idea of the scope of
knowledge needed in order to know the dominant factors in play and
what circumstances cause them to currently be the important ones.
(Even in electronics, I regularly see professionals pointing out here
when certain factors become important in a particular application,
when in other circumstances they can be nearly completely ignored --
this comes from "informed judgment" and that is the kind of thing one
must acquire also when discussing climate science.

Like in electronics design, it generally takes training and experience
to get there. There is no avoiding the work. And narrowly focusing
on some ONE THING that one might ignorantly perceive as being the one
that argues their point does nothing to help in making a successful
product. For example, someone might ignorantly imagine that a BJT
digital signal inverter should work just fine at several MHz or even
tens of MHz without significant distortion on the output, if they use
a neophyte's simplified view of a BJT. But even a slightly more
comprehensive view would suggest that some factors (charge storage,
for example) might become increasingly important. If one were to
insist on an ignorant point of view and demand that they were right,
without having to learn anything more about the subject, I can only
imagine the abuse they'd receive here. And rightly so.

The paper by Rasool and Schneider (1971) that I mentioned is an
_excellent_ starting point for anyone because it uses a VERY
simplified perspective (1D approach) about approximating the impacts
of additional CO2 in the atmosphere that most people with some modest
math background can generally follow. It also provides an interesting
start on the idea of aerosols, which is worth studying, too. It gets
its conclusions about CO2 dead wrong and the authors were taken to
task on a few quite quickly and, in 1972, provided some more quite
serious flaws in their own work that others had NOT noticed. But
despite that, it's a very, very good place to start. It provides a
gentle path towards a better understanding, if for no other reason
than because sometimes a good way to start learning is to learn simple
things that were tried and didn't work out in the end. Seeing the
thinking processes exposed and how the flaws were uncovered is a great
teacher, at times.

Incidentally, the article you mentioned required payment for the PDF.

I have a copy in PDF form. Write me.

I think that Graham should read the papers that apply to subjects he
goes on about as though he knows something.

I have no problem with that. It's your suggestion that he read _all_
the papers that I find ummm.... indigestible. I believe I supplied
sufficient calculations to demonstrate that would be a rather
Herculean task.

Well, that's taking my comment to extremes and then imagining it is
flawed when taking it to places I hadn't intended. The central point
here is that scientists are _required_ (if they want to survive long,
anyway) to work earnestly and hard towards a comprehensive view.
That's as it should be, because, as I said, if one is allowed to be
selective in the facts they consider they could rationally conclude
the Earth is flat. The only tool any of us have in order to avoid the
problems in being selective is to work hard against the natural
tendencies of sloth and to diligently move as close to a comprehensive
view as possible before attempting to speak with authority on the
subject. That doesn't mean that a comprehensive view is always
correct. It's not. Who knows what the future will bring?? But, it's
probably one of the truly useful tools we do know about to helps
reduce the risks of error that attend an overly narrow perspective.

Incidentally, I goofed. I counted the number of papers, not pages. I
can read one page per minute, not one paper per minute. Depending on
the average length of the papers, the time required for reading it all
will be substantially greater than I estimated. Sorry for the
mistake.

It will probably be even worse than that. These papers are... dense.
It sometimes takes me hours to read just one page with understanding.
I will have to get out separate papers, a pen or pencil, and I will
need to go gather up other observations and data to plug into what is
being written and then deduce what was said to some specific
circumstance just to see if I can agree with the page before going on.

I have a new textbook I just picked up on atmospheric science and am
starting to wade through and you can flip to any page at random and be
faced with probably an average of two difficult equations. Multiply
that by the 700 pages in the book and you get an idea. It's going to
take me some serious time to get through even the first third of the
book.

There is no escaping... work. That is what being informed means.

If the point isn't clear to you, I'll make it explicitly clear. If
one is permitted to be selective about the scientific facts they
consider, they could quite reasonably conclude that the Earth is flat.

Been there, and done that. I was once an active member of the Flat
Earth Society. The methods used to demonstrate flatness does require
selective facts, as well as a creative interpretation of those facts.
Interestingly, those arguing in favor of the flat earth model, were
far more knowledgeable in geology and physics, than those supporting
the spherical model.

But that kind of knowledge isn't required. One can reasonably arrive
at the same conclusion by lending excessive importance to data that
confirms and either not seeing or else discounting severely evidence
that disagrees. It just helps a lot to have a comprehensive view to
make a really strong, limited perspective argument that will give some
trouble (and fun and smiles) to those who are also informed.

One cannot just pick and choose.

I can do anything I want. It's whether you or others reading my
comments choose to accept my selection of facts that's important.
Anything less would be censorship. Please don't tell me what I can
and cannot do.

I specifically used "one" and in a context that your comment doesn't
address -- which is that one cannot pick and choose if one is to
struggle towards a comprehensive viewpoint with its attendant lower
risks of being wrong. As I also said here, no one can predict what
the future will bring. So it's no guarantee of anything. But it sure
helps a lot.

And your comment was a strawman. In no way was I trying to tell YOU
what you have to do. I think anyone reading my comments would agree
that it is ridiculous to imagine I meant to try and force you to do
anything at all.

That's not how science knowledge is fairly discussed.

I beg to differ. That's not how science *SHOULD* be discussed.

Well, I suppose we won't find common ground there.

However, if one has a axe to grind, point to make, or political
agenda, stacking the facts in one's favor is commonly done. I'm more
into the political than the technical and find fact selection and
filtering to be the norm.

Politics is about finding shared goals and, where those do not readily
exist, negotiated grounds that various sides can live with, without
feeling the need to ultimately go to arms over. But if one wants to
know what the better science knowledge is, they should go to the
science... not the political battles, propaganda, etc. If one is just
interested in the political fights, then have at it. The political
arena is the place to go.

Graham hasn't even moved from the starting line,
yet. He needs to take a comprehensive view and to do that, he will
actually need to read with understanding the bulk of the science
knowledge on the subject he's interested in. Simple, really.

How much reading does one need to do before one is qualified to
discuss a subject?

To discuss? One can be completely ignorant.

If you are looking for some magic line in the sand, where on this side
you are not qualified and on that side you are not, don't come asking
me. I don't believe there is such a line. One does serve themselves
much, much better, though, by reading comprehensively. Obviously, and
I agree with you on this point, one cannot possibly hope (today,
anyway) to read comprehensively on the broadest subject of climate
science. If for no other reason, because climate science must itself
include life and biology since life itself is a VERY IMPORTANT system
of feedbacks that cannot be ignored in understanding climate science
on the broadest levels. So you have some areas that are pretty well
understood (radiation physics and thermalization, for example) and
some areas that are much more poorly undertood (detailed theories that
predict precise cloud formations without comsuming all of the
processing power of the entire planet, for example, which is why there
is so much attention to parameterized models and the testing of these
models against actual theoretical predictions in small regions on
Earth as a continuing check.)

So, I agree that one must narrow their focus. But what one _can_ do
is to pick one subject -- say, for example, radiation physics,
thermalization processes and how those vary over altitude, etc., and
study just that area enough to glean enough of it to actually then go
back and examine the extent papers on the subject. If you do that,
you will find the papers are well-written and sincere and accurate and
quantitatively predictive. Then you can add in subjects such as
cosmic rays and their possible inpacts on cloud formation, research
papers that discuss the motion of Earth's solar system in our galaxy
and what is known about where we currently are and have been in the
past, and a lot of other related subjects as you gradually broaden
your perspectives. See if the knowledge you are gaining makes sense,
is theoretically sound, can be deduced to specifics, and is congruent
with the peer-reviewed papers you then grab and read.

I think if you do that much, on some facet and not the whole field,
you will find the work excellently done and moving in the right
directions, following up with later research that examines the
assumptions made in earlier research, etc. And just pick a subject at
random. Poke at it. See where it takes you. But be as comprehensive
as you can be in that narrow area. No matter what you pick, it is
much wiser not to be selective. You can be selective about the
domain, of course, but should be close to comprehensive within it if
you can manage that.

You don't have to grab up the whole field. Only a very few people
even try to do that.

I believe I demonstrated that _all_ the papers on
climate change is impractical (unless you simply want to muzzle
Graham).

Sure. But that wasn't what I was saying and that is arguing against a
strawman you are setting up.

There should be a workable number that entitles one to
proclaim limited competence. It should also be possible to prepare a
recommended reading list of articles. We can even issue certificates
of completing for those reading 1, 10, 100, or perhaps 1,000 such
articles, which offers the reader a corresponding competence and
credibility rating.

Well, hopefully the above comments from me will clarify better what
I'm talking about.

Why just CO2? Isn't methane production an equal problem? Also, let's
not forget about the number one greenhouse gas, water vapour.

Do you have ANY clues, at all? That you even mention H2O tells me you
have not even the most basic knowledge of discernment on the subject.

I do wish you would target your comments on the facts, opinions, and
data presented, and not waste your time attacking the source. If you
wish to debate this on personal terms, there's always email.

You are the one that dropped in H2O in the same context (paragraph) of
CO2. That is all that is required to suggest you may not understand
things.

In this case, you're correct. Water vapor is an aerosol and should
not be classed as a gas.

<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142>
The overlaps complicate things, but it's clear that water
vapour is the single most important absorber (between 36%
and 66% of the greenhouse effect), and together with clouds
makes up between 66% and 85%. CO2 alone makes up between
9 and 26%, while the O3 and the other minor GHG absorbers
consist of up to 7 and 8% of the effect, respectively.

A selective quote that in no way brings up what I was thinking about.
I refrained from exposing my hand here because, to be honest, it is
quite obvious once you understand the differences and isn't at all
hard to remember. Your above quote shows me that you are selective
and don't even realize it. Which tells me more about the limitations
in your perspective.

As for my possession of any clues, I am not an expert on the topic of
climate change. I am not a climatologist, weather researcher, or
computer model builder. I have a well tuned BS filter. I do read
extensively on global warming. At this point, I'm still undecided on
many aspects of global warming.

Well, you have three choices as I see it. Either you (1) pick and
choose which charismatic authorities you will cleave to and just
accept what a few individuals say that fits your preconceived notions
about things or (2) allow those who _do_ specialize in these areas of
science to work towards a scientific consensus and let that evolving
understanding be the authority you will follow or (3) inform yourself
so that you can reasonably come to an independent opinion. The only
way to have an independent opinion, though, is to work hard and inform
yourself.

Even Graham, I think, has had his head banged up one side on H2O. So
although he may not apprehend the details fully, he probably at least
knows enough not to bring in that subject with those who _do_ know
something. Though, I suppose, if he were being disingenuous and
speaking to an audience who does not have a clue, he might do so.

Perhaps, but I certainly wood. I've done some public speaking and
fairly good at promotion and propoganda. Converting science into
politics is an art that most technical people do rather badly. Graham
has a good start on the methodology, but has a long way to go before
he can be as smooth and accomplished at presenting his facts as Al
Gore.

I'm still waiting for you to read more on H2O. The idea you propose
that it is an aerosol is NOT the right viewpoint -- or, at least, it
is not the right viewpoint in the context that CO2 is in -- a molecule
that has the right degrees of freedom of vibration to be a global
warming molecule. Water _can_ be in aerosol form at times (cloud
particulates), but that isn't what is being discussed by the quote you
provided from realclimate and if you don't already know why, then you
need to read more.

You tell me... what makes H2O different from CO2 in this context?

I think I understand the question. Politically, the difference is
that most water vapor emissions are not man made, while the increase
in CO2 emissions is substantially man made (ignoring bovine
flatulence). If it's man made, the presumption is that it can be
mitigated. If it's natural, mother nature will have a fit if we mess
with her processes.

Nope. That isn't even close to the right answer. In fact, far far
from it.

Would you like to read more? Or shall I just tell you here?

Jon
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Global Warming: Junk science at its [best] worst
    ... three environmental/climatological science journal articles you have ... There are some papers, peer-reviewed and excellent, available on the ... them, instead, the hopefully honest truth -- that you are interested ... giving you a serious, collegel level climate science education, you ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: OT: Post Turtle
    ... who are actively working in science as you'd like to be treated ... Because I'm skeptical about the state of climate science? ... has a history of fudging data. ... I keep discussing facts, or disputing what other people consider to be ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Global Warming: Junk science at its [best] worst
    ... three environmental/climatological science journal articles you have ... There are some papers, peer-reviewed and excellent, available on the ... their own work without interfering with publication copyrights -- I ... channel" stuff on the environment. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George Bush Drinking?
    ... The IDers are making claims of *science* ... matter of the journals to which they are submitted? ... Shouldn't you read a few of those ostensibly suppressed papers ... What makes you think there has been no peer review? ...
    (rec.woodworking)
  • Re: Scientnfic Repression in the 21th Century-The Next Galileo Galilei ??????
    ... > The history of science teaches that the greatest advances in the ... > incomprehension of eminent scientists. ... > papers authored by credentialed physicists, i.e., those who ... > consistently had papers approved for publication in peer refereed ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading